Hell Bound

In post-war L. A., Jordan makes a film about using a fake quarantine to steal surplus government drugs from a freighter. Wealthy investor Harry Quantro suggests doing it for real. Femme fatale Paula joins the caper.

I think that I missed half the hidden meaning and double entendre. Somebody needs to explain the two heads comments. One is for thinking but I don't know the other. Are they suggesting that she gives good head? What does putting her shoes on mean? What does half of this dialogue mean? It certainly keeps one on one's toes. This is a low budget B-movie. As such, they try to build atmosphere with a lot of empty industrial parks and dock locations. It fully uses the stacks of trolley cars. It's a lot of noir style, acting hard, and no money work-arounds. Why is the blind guy drinking milk? There are so many weird under-the-radar choices being made. I'm not saying that this is a classic but they are throwing everything at this and it's fun to see.

He is the lead character here, an evil one for change, so delightful, delicious, a head master of a robbery, complex one involving a shipment of drug taken from a freight ship. It is an underrated film, small budget, totally forgotten now. It was aired on TCM and availabe on You Tube. There were batches like this one, in the more or less small Hollywood companies in the fifties, and even later. You have just to be lucky to find them. I highly prefer John Russell here than in Republic Pictures westerns or war dramas of the early fifties, or even the PALE RIDER crap, where he was the leader of a bunch of vicious killers who terrorized a mine town. A good little heist film to discover, but anyone will certainly prefer ASSAULT ON A QUEEN, in terms of robbery aboard a ship. Jaw dropping ending.

John Russell was a very large, handsome and often scary looking man. Mostly he made westerns, though here in "Hell Bound" he's in a low-budget film noir picture.

The film begins with Jordan (Russell) coming up with a perfect plan to hijack a shipment of surplus narcotics left over from World War II. The military plans on destroying them--Jordan plans on relieving them of that responsibility and selling them for a fortune. However, to make the plan work several partners need to be gathered--a nurse, a derelict man in a raft, a crew member who will go into a diabetic coma and a government agent to look the other way. It's such a perfect plan he even made a movie and showed it to a mob boss--a man who is duly impressed--so impressed that he offers his girlfriend to play the part of the nurse. With all these things in place, what's to go wrong?!

While the film has a few slow moments, the execution of the robbery is exciting and a bit shocking in its brutality. I appreciated this, as these ARE criminal scum and they sure act like it!

As far as the nurse plot goes, it reminded me of the amazingly good but mostly forgotten Rory Calhoun picture, "The Big Caper". All in all, very well worth your time.

This is an odd movie. The plot resembles of that of "The Killing" from 1956 (no spoilers from me, folks!), but with a train yard instead of and airport and an inexplicable amount of random foot fetishism scenes.

The location shots of the seedy, ugly industrial underbelly of the Port of Los Angeles, filled with clanging freighters, trains, cranes, derricks, busted lamps, bridges, weedy open areas, parking lots, and seedy neon streets are spectacular -- beautifully filmed in high-noir style, and almost documentary in their precision. The trolley graveyard, Southern Pacific freight yard, and piles of scrap metal are literally priceless as settings. For anyone seeking great, sharp-focus, high-contrast footage of the industrial junk piles in Los Angeles in 1957, this is valuable footage.

The plot is ... a plot (see "the Killing") and the actors are competent, but the script is thin, so there are lots of unvoiced action scenes and facial dead-pan reaction shots that last too long. The repetitious, silent fetish scenes of women's feet, both in and out of shoes, also lack charm. And, inexplicably, several minutes are wasted on a pointless strip tease act right out of a Sack Entertainment exploitation film. The director was probably getting off on the high sleaze-quotient, but i found it awkward and childish.

I'm glad i saw this film, but i didn't really like it all that much.

This would have been very good as a 50 minute episode of an hour long TV crime drama series. The extra 20 minutes could easily be cut from the padding I mention, and a harder hitting more focused tale would be the result.

The film opens with a narration about the perfect crime - How to steal war surplus contraband worth 250 thousand dollars from a cargo freighter with no confrontation, nobody the wiser. Then the narration ends and we see that this has been a short film presentation by Jordan (John Russell) who is pitching this to a crime boss whose financial backing he needs. I can imagine that is true, because in 1957 making such a film that involves a freighter and a cast of hundreds would not be easy or cheap. It's not like you could just shoot it on your IPhone Pro.

Jordan gets the backing he wants, but then he makes a series of bad moves, all involving the cast of accomplices he picks. He needs a nurse, an actual maritime health inspector, and somebody to pretend he is lost at sea that is rescued by the freighter. The problems are in the nurse - she is actually the crime boss' girlfriend who is not a nurse, and the "lost at sea" guy - he is a junkie, unknown to Jordan. Junkies are characteristically undependable, a slave to their habit, and the fake nurse will have to ride around in an ambulance for a few days as an actual nurse before the heist. What if the ambulance driver starts tossing medical jargon at her like "banana bag" and tarchy?? What if she is asked to start an IV? The results could be grisly or at least malpractice.

I found a couple of more questions that were never answered. For one, how does Jordan know that a particular freighter has war surplus drugs onboard? Also, definitely a plot faux pas if you are diabetic. It is never a good thing for your blood sugar to "shoot straight up", and that means more insulin if it does happen, not less. But I digress.

On the positive side what this film lacks in logic and meaningful dialogue it definitely has in noir imagery. In particular, there are some great shots of a mass grave of the LA trolley cars towards the end. If you watched and remember "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", you'll remember that the trolley cars being abandoned in the late 40s weighed heavily into the plot of that film. Also, John Russell is great as ruthless villain Jordan, with his severe features and always dressed like a 50s insurance salesman. In fact he winds up being a little too ruthless for his own good.